alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Hillsborough

No. 81-010

#### Barry T. Fleming v. John C. Martin *& a.*

February 19, 1982

*129*Kahn, Brown & Bruno,*of Nashua *(Kenneth M. Brown*on the brief and orally), for the plaintiff.

*Hamblett & Kerrigan P.A.,*of Nashua *(John P. Griffith*on the brief and orally), for the defendants.

King, C.J.

On April 30, 1974, the plaintiff, Barry T. Fleming, went to the home of the defendants, John C. Martin and Joan Martin, to meet their son. As the plaintiff and the defendants’ son watched motorcyclists who were racing on the defendants’ property, one of the motorcycles struck the plaintiff from behind. The plaintiff brought an action in negligence against the defendants and, after a jury trial, he was awarded $65,000 in damages. During trial, the defendants sought a non-suit after the plaintiffs opening statement and a directed verdict after the plaintiffs case. After trial, they requested a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, but all motions were denied by the Superior Court *{Flynn,*J.). The defendants appealed the trial court’s rulings to this court.

Before trial, neither party objected to having the legal standard set forth in *Ouellette v. Blanchard,*116 N.H. 552, 364 A.2d 631 (1976) applied. In *Ouellette,*this court abolished the distinctions between licensees and invitees and set forth a standard of reasonable care to be used in all cases in which a person is harmed while on another’s property. *Id.*at 557, 364 A.2d at 634. When the trial court instructed the jury according to this standard, although the defendants objected to part of the charge, they did not object to the use of the *Ouellette*standard. On appeal, however, the defendants claim that the trial court erred in applying *Ouellette*because in *Burns v. Bradley,*120 N.H. 542, 545, 419 A.2d 1069, 1071 (1980), this court stated that *Ouellette*would apply only prospectively.

We need not address the issue of whether the *Ouellette*standard should have been applied to this action when the injury claimed occurred two years before the *Ouellette*decision, because *130the defendants did not make a timely objection to the application of *Ouellette.*The standards set forth in *Ouellette*became the law of the trial when the defendants failed to object to the trial court’s instruction to the jury. *Zielinski v. Cornwell,*100 N.H. 34, 39, 118 A.2d 734, 738 (1955); *see Danvers Savings Bank v. Hammer,*122 N.H. 1, 4, 440 A.2d 435, 437 (1982); *Steele v. Bemis,*121 N.H. 425, 428, 431 A.2d 113, 115 (1981).

The defendants’ argument that the plaintiff was a licensee on the property and that his status required less than reasonable care by the defendants is irrelevant to this case. The defendants are bound by the law as applied to the case because they accepted it.

Although the defendants raised other issues in their notice of appeal, those issues were not briefed by the defendants, and therefore, we will not reach them.

*Affirmed.*

All concurred.
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 190 (Monday, October 2, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 57967]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-8382]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality


Notice of Meetings

    In accordance with section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act as amended (5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), the Agency for Healthcare 
Research and Quality (AHRQ) announces meetings of scientific peer 
review groups. The subcommittees listed below are part of the Agency's 
Health Services Research Initial Review Group Committee.
    The subcommittee meetings will be closed to the public in 
accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, section 10(d) of 5 
U.S.C., Appendix 2 and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6). Grant applications are to 
be reviewed and discussed at these meetings. These discussions are 
likely to involve information concerning individuals associated with 
the applications, including assessments of their personal 
qualifications to conduct their proposed projects. This information is 
exempt from mandatory disclosure under the above-cited statutes.
    1. Name of Subcommittee: Health Systems Research.
    Date: October 19, 2006 (Open from 8 a.m. to 8:15 a.m. on October 19 
and closed for remainder of the meeting).
    Place: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), John 
Eisenberg Conference Center, 540 Gaither Road, Rockville, Maryland 
20850.
    2. Name of Subcommittee: Health Care Quality and Effectiveness 
Research.
    Date: October 19, 2006 (Open from 7:30 a.m. to 7:45 a.m. on October 
19 and closed for remainder of the meeting).
    Place: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), John 
Eisenberg Conference Center, 540 Gaither Road, Rockville, Maryland 
20850.
    3. Name of Subcommittee: Health Care Technology and Decisions 
Sciences.
    Date: October 24, 2006 (Open from 8 a.m. to 8:15 a.m. on October 24 
and closed for remainder of the meeting).
    Place: Marriott Gaithersburg Washington Center Hotel, 9751 
Washingtonian Boulevard, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20878.
    4. Name of Subcommittee: Health Care Research Training.
    Date: October 24, 2006 (Open from 8 a.m. to 8:15 a.m. on October 24 
and closed for remainder of the meeting).
    Place: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), John 
Eisenberg Conference Center, 540 Gaither Road, Rockville, Maryland 
20850.
    Contact Person: Anyone wishing to obtain a roster of members, 
agenda or minutes of the nonconfidential portions of the meetings 
should contact Mrs. Bonnie Campbell, Committee Management Officer, 
Office of Extramural Research, Education and Priority Populations, 
AHRQ, 540 Gaither Road, Suite 2000, Rockville, Maryland 20850, 
Telephone (301) 427-1554.
    Agenda items for these meetings are subject to change as priorities 
dictate.

    Dated: September 20, 2006.
Carolyn M. Clancy,
Director.
[FR Doc. 06-8382 Filed 9-29-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-90-M
§ 600.1514 Revocation effective date and notification to vessel owners. ( a ) Following issuance of a Revocation Letter pursuant to § 600.1512 and any appeal pursuant to § 600.1513, NMFS will provide notice to all vessel owners impacted by the type-approval revocation via letter and Federal Register notice. NMFS will provide information to impacted vessel owners on: ( 1 ) The next steps vessel owners should take to remain in compliance with regional and/or national VMS requirements;
( 2 ) The date, 60-90 calendar days from the notice date, on which the type-approval revocation will become effective;
( 3 ) Reimbursement of the cost of a new type-approved EMTU/EMTU-C, should funding for reimbursement be available pursuant to § 600.1516.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

Kurtis T. Wilder,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

November 1, 2017

s1031 

# Order

Clerk November 1, 2017

156641 & (4)(5)

GRIEVANCE ADMINISTRATOR,

Petitioner

- Appellee,

v SC: 156641

ADB: 15

- 000023

- GA

LYLE DICKSON,

Respondent

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED.

The motion to stay is considered, and it is DENIED.

The application for leave to appea l remains pending.
16-023521_SJW

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

CHICAGO DIVISION 

In re: 

Yashica L. Spellman 

Debtor.

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

Case No.: 16-27238 

Chapter 13 

Judge Carol A. Doyle 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

CERTIFICATE OF NON-COMPLIANCE

Now comes Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC , its successors and assigns (hereinafter, 

"Creditor"), by and through its mortgage servicing agent Cenlar FSB, by and through counsel, 

and certifies to this Court that Yashica L. Spellman ("Debtor") has failed to comply with the 

Order entered by the Court on March 22, 2017, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 

“A”, by failing to make timely payments in accordance with the Order. Pursuant to the Order, the 

automatic stay will terminate upon the filing of the Certificate of Non-Compliance. 

Creditor hereby advises the Court that Debtor is delinquent for the May 1, 2017 payment 

and for all arrears that were due thereafter. 

The Chapter 13 Trustee shall discontinue all payments to Creditor on its claim under the 

Chapter 13 plan filed by the Debtor(s). 

WHEREFORE, upon the filing of the Certificate of Non-Compliance, the stay is 

terminated without further hearing. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Todd J. Ruchman (6271827) 

Keith Levy (6279243) 

Sarah E. Barngrover (28840-64) 

/s/ Todd J. Ruchman 

Case 16-27238 Doc 47 Filed 08/01/17 Entered 08/01/17 11:52:57 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 5
16-023521_SJW

Adam B. Hall (0088234) 

Edward H. Cahill (0088985) 

Umair M. Malik (6304888) 

Manley Deas Kochalski LLC 

P.O. Box 165028 

Columbus OH 43216-5028 

Telephone: 614-220-5611 

Fax: 614-627-8181 

Attorneys for Creditor 

The case attorney for this file is Todd J. 

Ruchman. 

Contact email is 

tjruchman@manleydeas.com 

Case 16-27238 Doc 47 Filed 08/01/17 Entered 08/01/17 11:52:57 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 5
16-023521_SJW

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing Certificate of NonCompliance was served on the parties listed below via e-mail notification: 

U.S. Trustee, Patrick S. Layng, Office of the United States Trustee, Region 11, 219 S. 

Dearborn Street, Room 873, Chicago, IL 60604 

Tom Vaughn, 55 E. Monroe Street, Suite 3850, Chicago, IL 60603 

David H Cutler, Attorney for Yashica L. Spellman, 4131 Main St., Skokie, IL 60076, 

cutlerfilings@gmail.com 

The below listed parties were served via regular U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, on August ___, 2017: 

Yashica L. Spellman, 1218 S Sawyer, Chicago, IL 60623 

Yashica L. Spellman, 1218 S Sawyer Avenue, Chicago, IL 60623 

1

/s/ Todd J. Ruchman 

Case 16-27238 Doc 47 Filed 08/01/17 Entered 08/01/17 11:52:57 Desc Main

 Document Page 3 of 5
Case 16-27238 Doc 35 Filed 03/22/17 Entered 03/22/17 09:57:06 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 2 Exhibit A

Case 16-27238 Doc 47 Filed 08/01/17 Entered 08/01/17 11:52:57 Desc Main

 Document Page 4 of 5
Case 16-27238 Doc 35 Filed 03/22/17 Entered 03/22/17 09:57:06 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 2

Case 16-27238 Doc 47 Filed 08/01/17 Entered 08/01/17 11:52:57 Desc Main

 Document Page 5 of 5
Exhibit 12.1

                     WILLIAMS SCOTSMAN, INC.AND SUBSIDIARIES

                Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                                                          Year Ended December 31,
                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       1994          1995         1996         1997        1998
                                                       ----          ----         ----         ----        ----
                                                                     (Dollars in thousands)
Earnings:
<S>                                                     <C>           <C>          <C>          <C>          <C>
     Earnings from continuing
       operations before income taxes
       and extraordinary item                         $  1,772     $  7,422      $15,175     $  9,965       $12,559
     Fixed charges from below                           19,468       23,353       26,755       44,767        67,042
                                                        ------       ------       ------       ------        ------
       Total earnings                                  $21,240      $30,775      $41,930      $54,732       $79,601
                                                        ------       ------      -------      -------       -------

Fixed Charges:
     Interest                                          $18,705      $22,485      $25,797      $43,611       $65,060
     Interest component of rent expense:
       Total rent expense                             $  2,288     $  2,605     $  2,875     $  3,468      $  5,947
       Portion considered interest expense                 33%          33%          33%          33%           33%
                                                        ------      ------       ------       ------        ------
                  Interest component                 $     763   $     868     $    958      $  1,156      $  1,982
                                                       -------    --------      --------      -------      --------
                  Total fixed charges                  $19,468     $23,353      $26,755       $44,767       $67,042
                                                        ------    ---------    ---------      -------       -------

Earnings to Fixed Charges                                 1.1x        1.3x         1.6x          1.2x          1.2x
                                                          ===         ===          ===           ===           ===
</TABLE>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Millennium Challenge Corporation

          - [MCC FR 06-01] 

# AGENCY:

Millennium Challenge Corporation. 

# Time and Date:

 2 p.m. to 3:45 p.m., Wednesday, February 8, 2006. 

# Place:

 Department of State, 2201 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20520. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Information on the meeting may be obtained from Joyce B. Lanham via e-mail at                         *Board@mcc.gov*                         or by telephone at (202) 521-3600.                     

# Status:

 Meeting will be closed to the public. 

# Matters to be Considered: 

The Board of Directors (the “Board”) of the Millennium Challenge Corporation (“MCC”) will hold a meeting to discuss and consider Threshold Country Program submissions of two countries that are eligible for FY 2006 Millennium Challenge Account (“MCA”) assistance under section 616 of the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003 (the “Act”); an MCC Operations update; Compact development issues related to MCA-eligible countries; and certain administrative matters. The agenda items are expected to involve the consideration of classified information and will be closed to the public. 

Dated: January 24, 2006. 

Jon A. Dyck, 

Vice President and General Counsel, Millennium Challenge Corporation. 

[FR Doc. 06-785 Filed 1-24-06; 10:33 am] 

BILLING CODE 9210-01-P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6690

MARKESE D. RICE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

KENNETH DIGGS,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at 

Charlotte. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (3:23-cv-00355-MR)

Submitted: December 29, 2023 Decided: February 23, 2024

Before QUATTLEBAUM and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Markese D. Rice, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6690 Doc: 8 Filed: 02/23/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Markese D. Rice appeals the district court’s order construing his Fed. R. Civ. P. 

60(b) motion for relief from judgment as an unauthorized, successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 

petition and dismissing it on that basis.

*

 Our review of the record confirms that the district 

court properly construed Rice’s Rule 60(b) motion as a successive § 2254 petition over 

which it lacked jurisdiction because he failed to obtain prefiling authorization from this 

court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A); McRae, 793 F.3d at 397-400. Accordingly, we 

affirm the district court’s order. 

Consistent with our decision in United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th 

Cir. 2003), we construe Rice’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file 

a second or successive § 2254 petition. Upon review, we conclude that Rice’s claims do 

not meet the relevant standard. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2). We therefore deny 

authorization to file a successive § 2254 petition. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

* A certificate of appealability is not required to appeal the district court’s 

jurisdictional categorization of a Rule 60(b) motion as an unauthorized, successive habeas 

petition. United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 400 (4th Cir. 2015).

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6690 Doc: 8 Filed: 02/23/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

January 27, 2015 

# Order

Clerk January 27, 2015

148753 (59)(60)(62)

DETROIT EDISON COMPANY,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

SC: 148753

v COA: 309732

Court of Claims: 10

- 000104

- MT

DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY,

Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________________ /

On order of the C hief Justice

, the motion of the Michigan Milk Producers

Association to extend the time for filing an amicus curiae brief is GRANTED. The

amicus brief will be accepted for filing if submitted on or before February 9, 2015. On

further order of the Chief Justice, the separate motions of t he Michigan Chamber of

Commerce and the Michigan Manufacturers Association for leave to file amicus curiae

briefs are GRANTED. The brief s filed by those amici on January 2 0 , 2015, are accepted

for filing.
# EUR-Lex - 12004V141 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12004V141

**Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe - PART III — THE POLICIES AND FUNCTIONING OF THE UNION - TITLE III — INTERNAL POLICIES AND ACTION - CHAPTER I — INTERNAL MARKET - Section 2 — Free movement of persons and services - Subsection 2 — Freedom of establishment - Article III-141 **

*
Official Journal 310 , 16/12/2004 P. 0062 - 0062 *

Article III-141

1. European framework laws shall make it easier for persons to take up and pursue activities as self-employed persons. They shall cover:

(a) the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications;

(b) the coordination of the provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the taking-up and pursuit of activities as self-employed persons.

2. In the case of the medical and allied and pharmaceutical professions, the progressive abolition of restrictions shall be dependent upon coordination of the conditions for the exercise of such professions in the various Member States.

--------------------------------------------------
§ 32.70 Guam. The following refuge units are open for hunting and/or fishing as governed by applicable Federal and State regulations, and are listed in alphabetical order with additional refuge-specific regulations. ( a ) *Guam National Wildlife Refuge.* ( 1 ) - ( 3 ) [Reserved]
( 4 ) *Sport fishing.* We allow sport fishing and collection of marine life on designated areas of the refuge as governed by Government of Guam laws and regulations and subject to the following conditions: ( i ) We open the refuge to anglers from 8:30 a.m. until 5 p.m. each day year-round, except on Thanksgiving, Christmas, and New Year's Day, when we close to all public entry.
( ii ) You may not possess surround or gill nets on the refuge.
( iii ) We prohibit use of Self Contained Underwater Breathing Apparatus (SCUBA) to take fish or invertebrates.
( b ) [Reserved]
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . 47.5.4
.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 97-60400 Conference Calendar

__________________ CLIFTON E. LAWRENCE, Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus JEANNE PACIFIC; WYATT COLLINS; MARK WINDHAM, Defendants,

and MAURICE HOOKS; LAFAYETTE NELSON, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 2:93-CV-12PG
- - - - - - - - - - June 16, 1998 Before DAVIS, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Following a jury verdict in favor of the defendants, Clifton E. Lawrence argues: (1) that the magistrate judge erred by excusing a juror who stated that she could not remain unbiased; (2) that the magistrate judge abused his discretion denyingNo. 97-60400 -2- Lawrence's motion for the taking of depositions on written questions; (3) that the magistrate judge erred by denying Lawrence's request for interrogatories; (4) that the magistrate judge abused his discretion by disallowing the admission of documentary evidence for the purpose of impeachment; (5) that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury verdict; and (6) that the magistrate judge abused his discretion by denying Lawrence's motion for a new trial. Lawrence's issues numbered four, five, and six are unreviewable as Lawrence has not included the trial transcript in the record or asked this court to provide it at government expense. See F ED . R. A PP . P. 10(b)(2); Richardson v. Henry , 902 F.2d 414, 416 (5th Cir. 1990). Regarding Lawrence's discovery-based allegations, numbered one through three, Lawrence has not shown that the magistrate judge abused his discretion. See Richardson , 902 F.2d at 417. AFFIRMED.
[4910-I3-P] DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR ParI 39 [Dockel No. FAA-2009-0613; Direclorate Identifier 2009-NM-013-AD; Amendme 39J\£'L~?AD 

# **2:?~2I-o

L.j

# -02 RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A310-221, -222, -322, -324, and -325 Airplanes, and Model A300 B4-620, B4-622, B4-622R, and F4-622R Airplanes, Equipped wilh Pratt &Whitney PW4000 orJT9D-7R4 Series Engines AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department ofTransportation 

### (DOn. ACTION: Final Rule. SUMMARY: We are adopting anew aif'Northiness directive (AD) forthe products list

---

## f above. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MeAl) ATE 

## /-27-lb originated by an aviation authority ofanother country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MeAl describes the unsafe condition as:

During the year 2000, life extension exercise programs were launched for Airbus A310 and A300-600 aircraft. Certification of Extcnded Service Goal (ESG) isbased on analysis, except for fan cowl and tluust reverser (TIR) latches, which are always certified by tests.


## **

## * testing ofthe 

### TIR door centre latch has sho¥.'Ilthat this does not meet the requirements forESG.


# • * * 

# • * 

# • • The unsafe condition ispossible failure ofthe TIRlatch and detachment of the TIR fro